angeles times supreme court reporter david savage will discuss yesterday's campaign finance case involving a film produced about then-presidential candidate hillary clinton. "washington journal" starts now. >> the time for bickering is over, the time for digges is passed, now is the time for action. now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the american people that we can still do what we were sent here to do it now is the time to deliver on health care. .

host: your reaction to the president's speech on health care legislation. good morning, we hope to get to your phone calls right away here. you can also send us and e-mail, or a comment by twitter. that will be our first 20 minutes. members from the house and senate will join us today to give us their reaction to what they reactiona way forward might be on the healthcare debate. let's turn to some editorial pages for reaction. let's look of the cartoon here.

it has president obama in the well of the house -- you can see. mr. obama's prescriptions has this to say, the president extended an olive branch to conservatives pressing for limits on malpractice lawsuits, but remains to be seen whether those projects are a sturdy limb, or just a twig.

let's hear your reaction. the first phone call -- where are you calling from? caller: i'm calling from maryland. yes, i want to talk about the rep who called the president a liar. all the old world is listening

to the president today and how will they feel if i call him an idiot? is it because he is a black president, that he said so? that is nonsense. host: all right, thank you. he is talking about congressman joe wilson from south carolina. we have that clip available. it has gotten wide coverage. >all right, it is not quite ready. we will return to that. the next phone call comes from bella vista, charles. caller: he said he does not want to keep it down the road further, but he does not mind taking it to me. the deficit is further down the road. we're trillions in debt. he says he will get this money by cutting the waste in medicare, and so forth.

why did he start cutting waste six months ago when he first saw it? i don't know why we have the cbo. repeal this money for employees and no one pays attention to what they say and do -- we pay all this money for employees. they have said we cannot afford this bureau talk about line, he does live. he too-- talk about liying, he does lie. are the max baucus program for comprehensive health care, as the color. there is no way that they can pay for that. the only problem that i can see that irritates me more is people calling others racist. was i racist when i was against hillary clinton?

you better have thomas on your deal because he called him a liar in the last two days. read it walter williams, and know what they're talking about. host: led to the next comment from hillside, new jersey. caller: i'm calling to voice my support for the president's proposal last night. he has basically outlined what he intends to do, and a lot of the lies we have seen over these so-called town hall meetings have been brought to light. the president said yesterday that no illegal aliens will be covered. a congressman who is supposed to

know that yelled and heckled at the president of the united states? he showed the level to which some of the pundits of the president had actually descended in terms of the writing this man who is trying to do good. i'm a businessman. a self-employed businessman. i'm having a hard time just covering my family. this president is trying to take care of those who have been shut out by the insurance companies' where making things very difficult for most of us. host: thanks very much, frank. we want to get as many calls as we can end this first 20 minutes. let's look at this clip. >> the reforms i am proposing would not apply to those who are

here illegally. >> [yelling] host: next is a phone call from louisiana. caller: yes, i think it would be imperative for you to talk about the lewin group -- united healthcare owns that. it is fully funded by united healthcare and it will do all they can to keep the money going in. host: he is referring to the editorial from "the washington post" which uses lewin group statistics. the next call comes from richard. caller: i don't have much to say to mr. obama. i think he puts these plans out

there on his agenda and then he gets a stern public reaction and begins to backpedaling. i agree with the man from south carolina. host: here it says that inside the gang of six negotiants are hobbling along. -- negotiations are hobbling along. next is a phone call from camden, conn. on the independent line. good morning, steve. caller: thank you for c-span. i watched the speech last night and i thought it was enlightening, but it was really

disturbed when the representative from south carolina called the president of the united states a liar on the floor of the u.s. congress. he should be censored. he should be run out of town. i thought that was unbelievable. host: thank you for your call. next is a st. clair shores in michigan, james, on the independent line. caller: i thought the speech was great. it was very exciting to hear president get been finally clear up some of these lies that have been thrown out of these town hall meetings. i fought for this country. i was born in mississippi and i'm used to the burning crosses and i know what the president is going through. the fact that they're showing

this much disrespect to the president of the u.s., a man yelling out and calling the president a liar, and the whole world is watching? the president and the national approval rating and that in europe is 77%. the people understand what he is trying to do, the right here in our own country is were we have the worst enemies -- the ignorance and half-witted remarks being made -- we have to as americans insist that our airwaves are used -- those when they get used to spread hate by rush limbaugh, sean hannity and such -- every morning they give these infomercials. the journal is great because you

give us a chance whether we are for or against to say" we believe, but i cannot understand how we can allow -- we set a bad example. we left sarah palin call the president a terrorist and now she can charge $25,000 to have dinner with her. you get a rush limbaugh or such peddling their books every day. we have to do something to curb this tastefulness, this meanness. -- this hatefulness. host: the next call comes from raleigh, north carolina. it is on the republican line. caller: c-span is a wonderful thing. look, the democrats did not learn anything through august at their town hall meetings. they should have picked up on the fact that free americans

want a choice in the healthcare system. they do not want a public option or the government running the health care in the u.s. and having forced on them. that will be terre achilles' heel this time. this public option will not make it -- it will be their achilles heel. it is the weight of socializing the best health-care system in the world. -- it is the way of socializing the best health-care system in the world. that one little part that he insists it be included will be the undoing of the whole program. host: next, the line for

democrats. dee, hello. caller: thank you. i'm very disturbed about the way joe wilson came out to call the president a liar. i'm 59 years old and never in my lifetime have i ever reckoned with by see or hear president being disrespected as president obama. it is simply because he is black. although white president's we have had -- never in the race this respected -- never has a person from any raised this respect to the president as the four white republicans have this respect president obama. the president said last night that he will not added done to the deficit. why don't people believe that? but the far right republicans allow us to go into a war based

on a lie and that war is still adding to the deficit. the taxes that were break for the rich have not been paid for. none of the bills under the bush administration for the past eight years were paid for. they were not jumping up and down them. this is ludicrous the way our president has been disrespected with people carrying guns to the route. realize that if anything happens to the president and may lead to a civil war. we need to stop this. -- with people carrying guns to the town hall meeting. do they want the president to be assassinated? host: mr. wilson finds himself profiled in nearly every newspaper. here it is printed a statement he released 90 minutes after the speech.

he is in his fifth term and held the town hall-style meeting last month. he says that he gave a speech every day on the house floor about working together to reform health care. members of both parties expressed incredulity and distress. one republican lawmaker said he did not appreciate mr. wilson's outburst. caller: good morning, i just found the speech last night absolutely wonderful and i was a republican loyal till this time

until a bomb became president. i turned democrat, so i know that thinking and mentality of republicans. -- until obama became president. i have watched between news channels and the same buzz words are being used -- government takeover of health care, and all those other buzz words. there is nothing he did not make clear in this speech last night. i still do not understand why these republicans are not picking it up. i was a republican. now i am a democrat. there is no way i'm afraid of what president obama is trying to do. i totally respect him. i think he is wonderful. it is time republicans just sit down and be quiet like good little children and just let the

democrats to do with the need to do for us, not for big business. host: the last on call now, from minneapolis. caller: i get frustrated with people calling in to talk about disrespecting the president, calling him a liar. i did not hear that when bush was in there. and the men, they all lie. he lied when he said that the unemployment would not go over 8% when he passed the stimulus bill. it is ridiculous. so the congressmen last night got a little carried away with himself -- he apologized, drop it, let it go. host: let's introduce you from our first guest from congress joining us from capitol hill.

it is allyson schwartz from pennsylvania, a democrat. thanks for being with us today. guest: thank you, good morning. the president was so clear and it was both a substantive and almost passionate about what we have to do to address the economic issues in this country, including health care. for at least three decades we have tried to find this uniquely american solution for all americans to have affordable, meaningful health coverage. he laid out his plan with substance. he directed congress to move ahead. he spoke to the american people about the moral responsibility we have to tackle this issue in a financially responsible way. it was terrific.

host: what did you hear left unsaid? guest: he covered all the ground. he spoke out in a bipartisan way. he spoke to the real story is, people affected every day, those with insurance but once they get sick find out it is not really there for them. people who have been seriously hurt by that. and for the many who do not have insurance. each and everyone of us have a responsibility to find a fiscally responsible way. we need to make sure that americans no longer have to worry about whether they have ongoing health coverage. that is really important to many families in my district, and to businesses. the president hit every mark last night.

host: now that it is the morning after, what you see that needs to happen to move the legislative process forward? guest: the president put to rest some allegations that have been making it more difficult to have debate. but americans are engaged and millions watched last night. i have been working on the details of this legislation. he called on us all to move ahead, not find one more reason to not get this done. to find the moderate way forward. he pushed us a little bit and i think that is a good thing. host: we will begin with chicago on the independent line.

all right, last tried? let's move on to a republican in ohio. caller: yes, if the president thinks this health care is so great, why don't all of them including the president and congress used the same insurance instead of just putting it on all of us? guest: i'm happy to answer that. the fact is that no one, no american will be compelled to go into one particular plan. americans will have choices, continue to make choices between private eyeinsurance plans within your community -- you will continue to have employer- based insurance, medicare, veterans' insurance.

but for those individuals who have had a hard time finding private insurance, they will have a choice in the private marketplace. as you know, in many parts of the country there are not many choices. there is very little competition. it is true for members of congress. it will also be true for americans. no one will be pushed into any private insurance plan or public option. it is good to have a public option because there are many markets with no option. there are members of congress who feel we ought to also have aaccess to the marketplace, it does give a little complicated. >host: cleveland is next on the

line for democrats, karen? caller: i thought the president explained everything the president has been talking about. he explained everything concerning the buzz words. the people who still refuse to hear him will never hear him. it is all about money, who will be losing if he gets up this past, but we as the people need to understand that we will be winning. we're not supposed to be fighting for the prescription drug companies. our tax money pays for us to have a better life, to get services. they are all rich and we are all poor -- somewhat does that tell everyone? could we just give him a chance

to do this? we have given other presidents, you know, they all do their stuff. let's think positively that he will do what he says. we have been lied to before. he does seem different. that is why we elected him. host: let's get a response. guest: the president was very clear that there are people who do not want this. they want things to stay the same. it is very hard on families and even the government. you think about those who have a very few consumer protections. the president talked about the protections we all will have. there are some people who just do not want this to happen and

think americans should be on their own. for whatever reason they do not want to see us find a solution to make sure that insurance is meaningful and available. we will not convince everyone. there will still be those naysayers. but every other democracy has figured this out. we will find a uniquely american solution which is that each of us have responsibilities as individuals. we will have competition. americans will choose among plans. we will not get in the wake of americans and their doctors. it is time, i agree, to move on. we're not going away.

after we do this comprehensive health care reform -- and we get this bill on the president's desk, we're not going away. just as with medicare if there are changes that need to be made a, we will make those changes. we will take time to do it right. the president talked about this exchange and the public option not coming into play for a few years to make sure we have it right. it is very clear that it is time for us to act. host: conn., good morning. caller: hi, to you both. i love you guys.

host: it depends on how long you will take. caller: my observation -- the first 20 minutes i heard the zeitgeist with the consciousness raising. you either love him or hate him. we're getting better as a country. a quick opinion -- gibbs, what is his name? he was saying that the americans want choice and competition -- no, we want for universal health care for all pay and all are covered. we do not want competition. the invisible hand of the free market has been clobbering us for the last 30 years. a quick fact -- we were 37th out of 40 among nations and we pay double. all developed countries in the world have universal health

insurance. had obama begun with that fact we could have easily gotten the public option. so, i'm skeptical about president obama, but do notice that the consciousness is ra ised. god love you and brian lamb. guest: there are certainly those like this caller would like to see a single-payer plan for everyone. some feel it would be the most cost-effective way. but the president made clear, and i agree, and we have heard it over the past many weeks that there are also americans who are worried about major change. they like their doctor and their insurance coverage.

we will continue to work here on the house bill and finding that middle ground. it will be built on. what on it will build in strong consumer protections to make the coverage meaningful. let's make sure it is affordable and that there is a public option in case there are not strong, meaningful, private options for people. it is a way to build on what works and correct what is wrong. we are trying to make sure we get better value for dollars spent. there are a lot of auctions in the healthcare bill in the house to make sure americans have access to primary care physicians. make sure that there is plain language so when they read their insurance coverage they know what they're buying. also, making sure insurance

companies' do not deny coverage with pre-existing conditions. so that in the middle of chemotherapy you will suddenly be without insurance. this is a uniquely american model and a mixture of public and private plans. i think it will work for america. it is a way to move forward on middle ground. host: allyson schwartz is a member of the house ways and means committee. thank you. let me introduce senator tom coburn of oklahoma, a republican. he is a strong voice as one of the medical doctors who served in congress. where are we? guest: i thought it was a good speech and many republicans would agree with much of what he said. he said my plan, and there is a

far different from what he outlined in what is in the actual bills in the senate and house. either he is aware of what is in the house or senate bills, or we have to start over. you cannot make the claims he made last night and embrace the bills in either the senate or house. i agree that i look forward to working with him, but it cannot be on the bills passed from committees so far because they do ration care, pay for abortion -- all these things people have complained about. we have to go back. i agree that we have big problems we need to solve. he outlined what his plan was, but that is very different from the bill's. host: here is a clip of the president talking about bipartisanship. >> if you come to me with a serious set of proposals i will be there to listen.

my door is always open. but, know this, i will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it is better politics to kill this plan than to improve it. [applause] host: senator tom coburn you do have a health-care proposal. is the president's door open? guest: i think so. i have not spoken with him particularly other than with generalities in a month or so. nancy from cms is leading that for him, and they know what we're proposing. the divide is that everyone recognizes their serious problems with access. access is based on cost -- that is the problem.

we spend twice as much per person on health care than any other nation, with the exception of switzerland. the american people ought to ask why it costs hundred billion dollars over the next six years to create access rather than why we're not creating excess from money we are already spending, since we're already spending twice as much. the difference of approach is have to bring better value from the health care dollars spent rather than raising taxes over six years. how do we do that without taking that away from american taxpayers? that is the big different. it will be the big divide. if we pass a bill that spends more, we have not address the real problems that limit people getting health care -- it is cost and waste like crazy.

we spend money on things we never should spend on and we have designed that in the system and nothing we're proposing eliminates that. host: some argue that increased access of those who are healthy lower as the cost of all coverage. people who are currently insured are paying for those or not. guest: but there is no net savings because we are already paying those costs anywhere. it is true that if we really had an insurance market where we put everyone's risk in and spread it, then we would see some costs come down, but we really do not have that insurance markets. i disagree that a government plan is the way to create that. we should read independent causes that force insurance companies to indemnify. we would use risk readjustments

used in four countries in europe. it eliminates cherry-picking. we segment it's because we take medicare/medicaid and take them away. we want all the medicaid patients to be on insurance because the vast majority are healthy. and healthy when you add that to the insurance pool you will bring down costs for everyone. it would save the states about $960 billion over the next 10 years. -- we want all the medicaid patients to be on insurance because the vast majority are healthy. and you would take off the discrimination on their forehead because they're on medicaid and doctors will not see them and

give them real access to care. host: before we go to calls, what is the single biggest driver of cost in the u.s.? guest: lack of competition and transparency in the market. host: is that the insurance market? guest: yes, sure. the number one thing is that you and i do not make the decisions. we are disconnected. the cost versus the purchase of health care are not connected. i make a choice without an economic cost directly that i can see the causes me to be better consumer. once you doing and i have trained patience to do have high deductible plans -- these of the questions you ask and get the information before you act -- then you see costs go down. we have seen that in the private sector as with safeway. they have had no increase in

four years, but much more healthy employees. we can do these things. right now what is happening is a lot of talking past. the real leadership the president needs to take is to get in a room with some on my side, some on theirs, and ask for that 80% we do agree on and go. host: anchorage, alaska, on the republican line. caller: good morning, i'm glad you're on the television to represent the republican side and you seem to be very knowledgeable. i concur mostly with what you say. even though it is a good option to have a public option for competition, i am a little bit weary of all that statistical effort to get it done.

and the cost. i'm worried about moving too quickly. if we could come up with really good answers we know will work, we do not need to put them all in one bill. guest: there are a lot of answers. the first people we ought to pay attention to are the physicians in this country. they know the problems. they experience them every day. the heart aches for the patients who lack either insurance coverage or the capability to deliver care. physicians across the country in every specialty offer care for those who cannot afford it. they know we ought to listen to them more to treat the problem. one thing was very disappointed in, the president talked about

malpractice. he did not offer a plan to change bit. he said we will do some demo projects. we already have this. texas modified their tort reform and other costs are down 35% over the last eight years. but the trial lawyers control this party. much of the cost is tests no one needs, yet we continue to do them because of a liability. we need to change it and incentivize of the state to change it where it will be beneficial for citizens and physicians. host: you suggest of state-by- state approach? guest: that is right. we have no constitutional authority to tell states what to do, but we can incentivize them

to do the right thing. host: caller: good morning at no time in my life since i was 10 have been so proud of a president. -- host: good morning. caller: you republicans were in for a years and had everything, bush, the congress, yet did nothing on health care. you said the trial lawyers are four democrats, well, you have the medical corporations and doctors who are really entrepreneurs, there to make money. it is ridiculous that people and their children die because of capitalism. i'm a capitalist and i think president obama is a capitalist, but there are certain things when it comes to life and death of american children that you cannot just give the best service to the highest bidder and let the others died.

that is the system we have now. finally president obama exposed you republicans for your partisanship. you do not care about health care. you just see him as a huge threat to your future and want to destroy him anyway you can. host: ivan, thanks for your response. guest: president obama is a pretty good friend of mine and i have no desire to destroy him. there is the attitude and that is the problem. we are polarized in the country. we are polarized based on fear. the fear on my side of the aisle is that government control is not an efficient way. government control equates with less freedom and liberty. there is some legitimacy to that

position, but it is not always accurate. i do not know what the republicans did four years ago. i was not here. i agree with the caller that we had the opportunity to fix this and did not do it, but that does not mean today's ideas should be thrown out. i doubt seriously that the caller is a capitalist. what does that word mean? entrepreneur, hard work, personal responsibility and accountability will allow you to accomplish something for yourself? and then someone will take it away? that is the friction out there. one other thing, the reason people are worried about a government plan is because most of those people who are espousing a planned really want single-payer and have been on record saying so. it is a legitimate worry that moving from the government plan

to single-payer because of all the indications by a thelewin group and others are over the number of people who will be in it. host: here is a message by twitter concerning your texas example. guest: i can tell youtons, one for i was sued for doing something i did not do and spend 160,000 hours on legal fees. it was thrown out of court. 70% of the suits are extortion and have no basis. they want to settle, not go to court. the lawyers want to settle. the lawyers are not even necessarily in the camp of the individual, but rather of themselves. host: from charleston, south carolina, this is police. -- louise. caller: thank you.

i have a question and comment. first, sir, did you vote for the iraq war? guest: i was not in the senate then and i have not voted for the supplementals for it. caller: did you look for the $686 billion budget there will be passed for 2010 for the department of defense? guest: no, i did not. caller: thank you. i do agree with the previous caller concerning the republican party. but i don't think it applies to you personally. americans voted to give republicans out of office because we had some much government control that led to a house tax -- i am sorry, a huge tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of americans and has cost the jobless situation now.

you have been in office eight years it and have done nothing to help -- and have done nothing to help concerning health care. republicans have no credibility right now. guest: well, we have been out of control for two and a half years. look, the claim that the republicans could have done more is a legitimate. it is spot on. it does not deny the credibility of wanting to participate now with healthcare. the questions asked, was i willing to spend money to defend our country in iraq -- i'm highly critical of the money we spend and have not voted for the supplementals, or the iraq war.

i think we ought to pay for it rather than borrowing it from our kids. just as with healthcare. the real fact is that right now the track this country is on -- our kids will have 30% lower standard of living than we do now. it goes against the tradition and heritage of our country. to spend $3 trillion over the next 20 years on the healthcare plan when we could do the same without spending any additional is worrisome for me and my grandkids, and for everyone else's. host: what do you see happening over the next weeks? guest: it will depend if they really want to talk, if they really want a bipartisan bill. they can get one. i would like to see president obama's bill out there. remember that last night he said "my plan" -- not the plants

in congress. he can legitimately say that my plan does not have this or that, but the bill's going to congress do have all those things. i would love for him to get with a build-writers and write his plan -- with bill-writers and write his plan with compromise. if what he outlined last night with some minimal exceptions which is far different from what has passed committees in both the house and senate, then we can fix the problem with health care and save money. you're welcome. good to see you. host: we will have other members of congress here and makes them along with your phone calls. i think it will be helpful to summarize the president's plan. "the daily news'" does that this money.

-- this morning, this paper explains president obama's healthcare plan.

those are the bullet points from last night's speech from the paper in new york this month. but return to your calls. leesburg, a republican caller. caller: hello, two things to. if the government plan will be pasterpattern after medicare or medicaid -- 65% or so of doctors did not even take medicaid. they would have had the same problem with democrats as with republicans, nor tort reform. both parties need to sit down and get together with a% of what they agree on. before we get this government plan -- there will not have any

coverage. host: maine, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, i am sorry that i missed the senator. the way i break this down from my research -- by the way, i just turned 65. from a documentary done on public broadcasting on a show called "religion and ethics" -- and the newspaper in miami -- they went to miami and it seems that one-third of all medicare expenses are based on a person's last two years of their lives. they found out there in miami that the average alderperson went to see a doctor 121 times during the last two years of their lives. that is a bunch of doctors

taking advantage of a lot of old people. if i knew i would have to spend that much i would rather be dead. secondly, the healthcare insurance industry -- the president of united healthcare has made in the last four years he has been president between talk -- stock options and salary, $700 million. his predecessor made over $1 billion. that is the problem. too much profit on health insurance policies and too much waste on medicare. host: next up is a call from a terry on the republican line in michigan. caller: we'll sit here and watch c-span and love you. one thing i found it quite offensive with senator tom coburn is how he talked about

the cost of medicine -- $5 trillion in the next 10 years. people remember the figures but do not think of the time. in regards to positions -- most people go to several doctors because of one doctor's referral. at present i usually have to have one referral from a doctor to another. that is not the patient's fault. also, they talked about tort reform, but what is the remedy they offer to people when the doctor has done wrong? i know that doctors are not infallible. we all make mistakes, but what is the republican remedy?

host: two stories about the senate that have an effect on health care legislation. the christopher dodd and decision raises questions. it could mean bad news for the financial services industry facing congressional efforts to strengthen consumer protections and revamp financial regulations. on wednesday he confirmed he would not leave the panel to head the senate health committee after the death of senator ted kennedy. senator tom harkin who is seen as a staunch advocate for organized labor will take over the senate health committee. also, a hearing on kennedy's successor draws a crowd.

republicans and even a number of democrats have attacked the proposal -- governors here have had the power to fill senate vacancies until 2004. later, the fate of health care legislation in particular could hinge on whether a successor to mr. kennedy is in place in time for a vote. the next call comes on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, i was listening to people ask how they will pay for this health-care. so many times i have seen that

people have been asked to cut their pay, people making $30,000 per year. they have their rates cut. why can't congress cut some of their pay? they make $150,000 per year. why can't they give some of their salary to pay for things we need? this congressman that called the president a liar on national television -- he should be put out of the congress, not allowed to sit there anymore. that is disgraceful. we have a wonderful president and should support him. they should give his healthcare plan a try. host: this is bill from indiana, pa.. caller: yes, i like to see both

parties who have had years and years to do something with healthcare -- now they have this big debate. both want to make money. we ought to just get rid of all this and start over again. people who have been in there for 30 years. but they have all the ideas. they do not fit. any time the government has anything to do toour health they always grow. -- anything to do with our health, the government always grows. they will demand more money from us. we are barely making it today. it is ridiculous that these czars -- some presidents have them, but never 33.

all of them need to go. maybe in one or two advisors on the outside, but none should be there who do not have someone ahead of them to find out what they have been in their last past. host: michael is up next from baltimore on the republican line. caller: in 2004, 2005 i called my democratic rep and asked him not to vote for some bills coming out. they said they had no control. they have control now. i don't understand what they need republicans to do health care. they should be able to do it on their own without any republicans voting for it. what is their problem? if they have control now, they should do it. why bother with the republicans? host: next is a scot from kansas

on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. when senator tom coburn talks about bills with federally- funded abortions, that is a falsehood. you cannot have such provisions. it is obvious that the republicans still continue to spew falsehood and lies. it is impossible. you cannot have that in the bill. host: next is an independent from austin, texas. e caller: i have two quick comments. it is hard to believe that the republican from south carolina is not racist.

even with my employer offering health insurance and cannot afford it because i pay child support. it is for 17-rolled son, -- 17- rolled, my son, that either or i or my wife has custody of. there's so much that needs to be done before anyone can say they're doing anything about health care. i think it is all a big show. i wish that ron paul had one. . .

host: artest will be los angeles times reporter david savage. he will be here to tell us what he heard yesterday, which will be the first oral argument by justice sandra sotomayor -- just as the son of sotomayor. i am going to reset the calls here and ask for your comments by listening to a little bit of the president from last night with the broad parameters of his plan, as he is calling his proposals for what he would like to see emerge from the legislative process and from the town hall debates this summer. >> the plan i am announcing tonight would meet three basic goals. it would provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. it will provide insurance for those who do not. and it will slow the growth of health-care costs for our

families, businesses, and our government. host: we would also like to let you hear what the congressman, charles biscotti of louisiana, who was chosen by republicans to give their bottled or in response to the president's speech, what he has to say. >> it is clear the american people want health care reform, but they want their elected leaders to get it right. most americans wanted to hear the president tell speaker pelosi, majority leader reid, and the rest of congress, that it is time to start over on a common-sense bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while lowering -- while retaining quality. host: darrow, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i am baffled by the gullibility and naivety of americans and their comprehension -- their

lack of competition over the speech yesterday. ultimately, what president obama was basically trying to state was that competition would continue, but what he wants to do is the catcalls and to stop the abuse by the health insurance companies. the public option would be the last resort. the budget would be no more than $900 billion. so i do not understand what everybody is talking about, public options, public option. it is not going to happen. he is saying he wants a middle ground. that is basically what i am trying to state right now. people, please listen to the content of the speech and understand that we cannot afford the public option. thank you. host: florence, -- lawrence, democrats line.

you are on the air. caller: yes. host: what do you have to say? caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead, please. caller: i liked his speech. he was talking real good. we should have that. host: you are in favor of changing the health care system? caller: yes, i am in favor of changing the health care system. i have a few children that is in the army, and i'd be talking to them and they're telling me we should have that. those that fight for our country, we should take care of our country, too. host: next is a call from lynne, florida, republican line. caller: hi, susan. host: lynn, you are going to have trouble being heard because your volume is up on your tv set. can i-can you hit the mute

button? are you ready? last try for lin. i apologize, we have to let you go because we can hear the echo and we cannot tolerate it. republican line, go ahead. good morning, lesley. having a little problem with our line this morning. go ahead, cam. caller: thank you so much for accepting my call. my contribution is i am -- i listened to the president's speech yesterday and i am really proud of what he is doing. he has something on the plate for everybody. but my disappointment is when the republicans doing all this

war in iraq, where spending trillions of dollars there. now the president wants us to spend money on our own people, and it is very difficult for people to accept that. i cannot understand that. host: thank you for your comments. i want to mix in some of the other stories in the newspaper this morning. "the wall street journal" has won on the changing dynamics in iran. "iran rejected any compromise with the west over its nuclear program wednesday, as blunt comments from the obama administration over tehran's bomb making capability suggested the two sides were headed toward a renewed diplomatic crisis." next telephone call is from leicester, north carolina, dean, republican line.

caller: listen, i could not help while i was watching all the members of congress file in, the president's cabinet -- i could not help but notice and felt the whole time that i was watching a bunch of fat cats, out of touch. i do not think they have our best interests at heart. host: what would you like to see done, and dean? caller: if we are spending the kind of money we are giving away to the rest of the world, surely we can afford to ensure the people in this country, our own country. and take care of anybody that is under the age of 18, anybody that is retired, should not have to pay a penny for any kind of health care since we give so much money away. the only thing is, i do not believe these fat cats, these elitists, will do what is right for us. the insurance companies and the pharmacies will continue to run the show, and we the people are

the ones who are going to hurt. bottom line, i saw mr. waxman, congressman waxman on c-span back about two months ago, i guess it was, maybe a month and a half ago. he sat there and was laughing about a condition that he did not even think existed called restless leg syndrome. he was just laughing about it on your show, and that pretty much shows how out of touch with people who spent 30 years working on cement floors for this country, who do have problems with their legs and making a move all the time. host: on another topic, two very different headlines looking at the mortgage situation. "the baltimore sun," "federal

mortgage relief plan growing. lenders really -- lenders increased rate of modification under pressure from lawmakers, treasury." and from "usa today," local modification of troubled mortgages on slow pace." "12% of our worst have begun trial modifications of the mortgages since the start of a $75 billion federal program to rework home loans into more affordable monthly payments. the treasury repair department -- the treasury department reported yesterday." next call. caller: if you would allow me, i would like to make three short statements. one is concerning c-span and this health care debate. how long have you guys been putting this on? it seems like every morning i turn this thing on and it is health care from one into the

other for the past few months. there are other things going on in this world. the economy is tanking. we have got wars we should not be fighting. we have got boys and vaccines, but you guys want to be tested death with health care. this is not health care, it is insurance care. we have insurance companies come you have got to insure, you have got to in sure. this is all about money. we have got to take money out of health care,. . it is all about keeping the insurance companies in our back pocket. third, lastly, let's jump the rail. we are on the eve of 9/11. 9/11 needs to be reinvestigated. there are three things that are significant that came up recently. one is that nine scientists find out there was thermite in all

three of those buildings in the dust. that is impossible for hijackers to put in, the 100 tons of meal thermite that was put in those buildings. host: i want to introduce you to our next guest this morning, joining us from capitol hill. congressman tom perriello is a new member of the house of representatives, representing charlottesville, the danville area of virginia. he is a democrat, at a member of the transportation infrastructure committee's and a member of veterans affairs. outline your view of how the health care system needs to change. guest: i have been a no on the bill but want to be a yes because the situation is broken. it is bankrupting businesses, bankrupting the federal deficit. we also have a lot of rural hospitals in my district that will not be able to keep their doors open under the status quo. we know that this is not just

about the fact that costs are too much. incentives are off. so much of the incentives right now are for disease care instead of wellness care, not on prevention, primary care. insurance companies do not seem to have the incentive to invest in your well this because they assume you are not going to be on your insurance for that long. -- on your wellness because they assume you're not going to be on your insurance for that long. competition, bringing the costs down, and ensuring the kind of quality that americans expect in their relation -- expect in their relationship with their doctor. what you saw last night was a willingness to take ideas, whether they are from republicans or democrats, think tank politicians. if the ideas are good, we can work with it. host: you know the situation with the senate and the second committee, finance, which is seeming to the outside world to

be deadlocked. but the president talked about something last night called his plan, which is not necessarily embodied in the legislation coming out of congress. how do you get to where we need to be? guest: the new division in washington is not between republicans and democrats, it is between people who came here to solve the problem and people who want to take the easy route. when we came back from recess, i was curious how my fellow freshmen would feel, and people came back here to work. we got elected to take on the problems that both parties failed to deal with for a generation because that is what americans are supposed to do. we are supposed to step up to challenges like the financial meltdown, energy independence, and health care reform, that we know have a chokehold on our economy right now. when i saw from people coming back from the august recess was a deadly serious about getting down to work and finding those ideas, and i think the president showed real leadership last night by calling that out and saying if you are serious about being part of the solution, you

have a seat at the table. but if you are here to undermine it, as a democrat or republican, we do not have time for you anymore. this is a time for a series leadership, to focus on solutions and get the kind of incentives and structures in place to fix this health care problem for average american families and businesses. host: as a freshman member of congress, how do you have the opportunity to influence the debate? caguest: i have the same amount of influence on the same number of americans as other congressman. finding other people who have heard similar things. one thing we heard from the freshman classes, there was some convergence of interest in the idea that more competition and drive this. we want to see portability across state lines for any policy that will bring change. the president showed an interest

in tort reform last night. how do we go after frivolous suits, not the few suits were something wrong? these are policies we can put on the table that will not only bring down costs, but will bring back the joy of practicing medicine to doctors. i come from a family of doctors. my father is, my sister is, my brother is a gi doctor. this is about a calling to cure to help people. unfortunately our health care system now is not -- does not reward doctors. host: let's connect you with the c-span audience out there. palm coast, florida, jackie, you are on with the democrcongressm. caller: i hear all these weird phone calls, and i have been in

the hospital and i had a staff infection. instead of taking care of me, they were more concerned about coordinating my business before i could get some medicine. they have got to stop. whether it is republican or democrat. these ideas and these old people who have been in the white house forever, they need to move on out of the way because you guys have families and young people and we have been ripped off. you pay premiums of $300 or $400 a month, and then when you get sick, all they tell you is, before i can give you antibiotics, you need to get on the phone and coordinate your care. this does not sound like america, and i hope the people that hear the seriousness of my voice this is a shame and they

have to do the right thing. i understand that you need to run your business the way you want to run it, and diane to stand that nobody can tell you how much to pay -- and i understand that nobody can tell you how much to pay. host: jackie, with apologies, we can hear the seriousness of your voice and the emotion, understandably, but let's get the congressman a chance to respond. guest: first of all, i am so sorry about the struggles you have had. every day i hear such a good wrenching stories. when you are some -- every year i hear such a gut wrenching stories. you go into a system only to have insurance companies then deny your care after paying into it. you actually saw bipartisan applause lasted for holding insurance companies accountable for denying people with pre- existing conditions, getting rid of that part of the status pope, going after insurance companies who do not -- after

the status quo, going after insurance companies who deny people care. these reach every sense of fairness, not only american values of human values. this has to stop. the reality is, the status quo allows that to continue, allows stories like that to continue every day. unless those votes come with us and make something happen, deliver a real results here, not to deliver real results here. part of the competition is through exchange, public options through co-op. let's bring some options in that reformers -- that force this -- make it profitable for them to take care of patients well. when you create that good competition, that is the with a profit, by providing that quality product. instead of right now where we essentially have monopolies or quasi monopolies, in 93% of our

health care market. you cannot drop someone's care when you are sick. you cannot drop someone's care because of a pre-existing condition. we also need competition that will drop the cost of health care. host: michele, republican line. you are on. caller: ok. i am sorry, i have two questions and, i would like to make. number one, last night passed speech disappointed me. i want -- last night's speech disappointed me. i also wanted to hear is it the truth that every time i turn around, i hear something else is going to be cut from rome -- from one program to another program. one of the things i heard was going to be cut was motorized wheelchairs for handicapped people, that medicare will not pay for that anymore. is that true?

guest: on the first question about coming together, i think it was a tremendous effort to reach out across the aisle, right down to taking ideas that the republicans have been advocating and including them in his plan, whether that was a discussion of tort reform or senator mccain's idea of having and emerge as a pooling of risk program during the interim years before the exchanges set up. i think the line the president drew was not a partisan light between republicans and democrats, but it was a line -- was not a partisan line between robins and democrats. i think we are ready to sit down with anyone. they're working with us because i am serious about reform. i am serious about how broken the status quo is. i think the line here is no longer a partisan line, but a line between problem solvers and people playing political games, and i think that is an appropriate line to draw in the sand when we are talking about 1/6 of our economy, such grievous impacts for our

families and others. we have got to get this right, as he said. both parties have talked about doing health care reform for generations. we want to be the group hopefully across party lines that covers together to solve it. as for the cuts, i do not know about the cuts to motorized vehicles. i have not heard about that, but what i will say is that there is a tremendous amount of fraud and abuse in the system, and almost every republican, democrat, independent agrees there are hundreds of billions of waste in the system. if the waste is there, why have we not gone after it before? the reason is whichever party goes after it, the other party will accuse them of making scary cuts to seniors. my party would probably make the same accusations of republicans made the cuts. but the health-care problem is so real, i think it is the time that we have to stick up -- to step up and make difficult

decisions. we have to problem-solving ahead of the sort of easy alex. host: that sounds good, congressman, but how do you get there? guest: i was part of a group that thought that we need to take august to hear from the american people. we are now bringing that set of ideas and wisdom to our constituents. people here are working late after midnight trying to work on the policies that get this right. there are people here who did are not serious about getting this done, but there are enough here that care so much about how this problem is affecting not just the uninsured, but those who have insurance and cannot afford it anymore and those that are concerned about the federal deficit. we're working on a plan and we will not stop until we get there. host: the congressman is from the cannon house office building. arkansas, joan, on the

independent line. good morning, and joan. caller: good morning, c-span and congressmen. thank you to the president. i think that was a very clear and concise speech. one of those bills has 1018 pages. i think both houses are what is called the part of the liars' club, and i think it is unfortunate that mr. wilson should take a moment to make an and calculated statement as he did, and he should go to the white house and have a beer and sit down with the president and remind himself of what country he represents, who he is working for, the american people, and the, in respect. c-span, please have a show about our finances, because i understand the dollar is about to go internegatives, and that our economy could -- is about to

go into negatives, and that our economy is about to go under. we need to have a show that tells the american people how to protect themselves instead of all these commercials about buying gold. please go back and rewrite these bills to start over. do it soon. 2013 is around the corner, and if we could implement this stuff sooner, please do not make this any more difficult than it has to be. host: joan, thank you. congressmen, any response? guest: why would a republican -- the answer is it takes a long time to get these things up and running and fix. that is also one of the reasons why it is so urgent we reach a solution this year. we have an oncoming shortage of primary-care doctors in this country, quite a significant one. those who not pop up overnight. you have to get people into the system, -- those do not pop up

overnight. the fact that many of these things will take four to eight years to come into effect is another reason why it is important to be starting on this problem now. other parts of it, like no discrimination based on pre- existing conditions would kick in right away. as a congressman wilson's point, everyone across the aisle realizes it was a major breach of decorum. i understand he apologized. i do think we have lost a basic sense of civility in this country, and some of that is also what the media covers. we did over 100 town meetings and my district, and most of them were very simple. there were a few people who were rude and uncivil, and they often got called out, whether it was by their neighbors or others. this is a time where part of the american tradition is to disagree and to disagree intensely. but to do so this reply fully as leslie, i think we will see the

republican -- but to do so as disrespectfully as last night, i think we will see the republican party call that out. host: jane, you are on the air. caller: nice to talk to you. i wanted to make a comment that first of all i am solidly it for a single payer system, and i hope that, you know, whatever reform we take is the path toward that. i think that having any profit motive in health care is really a moral -- is really immoral. i also think that the timing of health care insurance to employment is anacharis this -- is anachronistic. we no longer have an economic system where most people are

employed by a company for their lifetime. i myself am under employee. i am a single mother. i have two college-aged children. i was denied health insurance, actually tried to set up a health savings account and was shocked to be rejected for a health savings account because i have had two previous false negative -- i am sorry, false positives pap smears and i cannot get insurance even though they were false positives. host: we need to wrap up because we're almost out of time. your file, and for the congressmen? -- for the congressmean? caller: no, that is all.

guest:, well, a first, i have respect for those who are in favor of a single payer system, but that is not where this bill is headed. but we are looking at universal coverage, and that will set up private companies competing on the exchange, where there is a set of rules that means more of their expenditures have to be spent on medical care and not overhead and executive bonuses. these are important moves come again, to require wallace -- these are important moves, again, to require care. whether it is in a public auction, a co-op, the insurance committee rule will apply across the board. we both have the human side of the problem, for those who are caught without insurance and living in horror that they are one disease away from bankruptcy.

we are shifting the cost of the uninsured on to the insured, and there is a fairness problem with that, too. the idea here is if we can create a system where there is competition for the uninsured and they start to buy into the system, that not only gives them the security and the preventive care, but that takes the cost of those who currently have insurance. that is why go back to the idea that the division is between those who are trying to solve the problem and those who are using it as a ploy for 2010. it is a time for problem solvers. that is the character of the american people and american leadership, that the american people deserve. host: to be clear on your own position, i heard you twice reference the exchanges. that would be our preference, overseeing the public option? guest: of the exchange is really there no matter what in the proposals. you saw and get rid bipartisan support last night, -- use

actually sought eight get bipartisan support last night. whether there is also a public auction or a co-op on that shelf is part of the debate right now. generally speaking, most experts feel that the increased competition will bring costs down from up the congressional budget office says that will save money rather than cost money. the did -- the exchange will be there no matter what on the proposal. host: thank you so much for talking with the c-span audience this morning. to our audience, we have a half an hour more on members of congress and we have two coming up -- barbara lee, a democrat from california. she will be joining us from that same seat at the cannon house office building. and congressman joe barton, republican of texas, the ranking republican on energy and commerce, one of the committees that is responsible for writing the legislation on the house side. he will be here with us to take calls. in the interim, let's take more of your comments, beginning with a call from lamar, california.

bob, republican line. caller: good morning. with medicare, fraud is the main thing. i had two episodes. one is my wife had foot surgery two years ago. we got a medicare statement this as this is not a bill, and i go through it and say that -- and see that medicare bills for 17 days of wheelchair grant. i told them that my wife has not even bought a cane, and that medicare did not have to pay for that bill. in 1992 when my mother went for a bladder infection to the hospital, the platelets in her blood were checked. well, i did not know how many

days they charge, but eight of those days, she was in the mortuary and then in her grave. medicare paid that bill, too. those of the things that have to be taking care of. that is just a minor deal compared to what goes on. that is what happens to medicare, and it will happen to this government deal, too, because of the government does not take better care of how they run their business, we will never get out of debt with this medicare deal. the government cannot take care of things like that. they do not take care of the post office or anything that they run. host: bob, thanks for your call. "the new york times" has a story about how the recession has affected states revenues from gambling. "the industry could near the saturation point, experts suggest." "casinos and lotteries in most

states are reporting a downturn in revenue for the first time, resulting in a drop in the money collected by state and local governments, according to a new state data. the decline comes as states are expanding gambling in hopes of stemming severe budget shortfalls, and it indicates gambling is not insulated from broad economic forces like recessions, has been -- as has been argued in the past. states that had been invested in gambling the longest had been hit hardest. illinois reported a $166 million drop in tax revenue in fiscal year 2009, from 2008." next phone call on health care is a call from stockton, california. lynn, independent line. caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: what you have to say this morning? caller: first of all, i want to applaud president obama's speech from last night. i hope that we can move forward

and formulate something that is meaningful and productive and that will be cost savings in health care reform. one thing i would like to see added to the health care reform that is not there. dental health care as part of preventative health care needs to be included. those costs can just be stifling and staggering because dental insurance, when you get up into the more expensive procedures, generally only pays 50% of the cost, and out of pocket expenses as well as the annual cap on treatment costs are just ridiculous as far as the care is concerned right now. one other point -- as far as congressman wilson's comments are concerned, if he chooses to behave on that -- in a matter on a national forefront like the floor of congress, perhaps he should stick to a state

legislature position, back where people share his racist views and his disrespectful views of how to behave. thank you very much. have a nice day. host: we will introduce you to our next guest representative barbara lee. congresswoman lee, this morning in the sense for cisco newspapers, you are quoted as reacting positively to the bus in the san francisco newspapers, you're quoted as wrecking positively -- the " from you is, "in talking with him over the last several months, "it has to be in the realm of public choices." can you tell us more? guest: i am pleased that president obama restated his commitment to a public options.

there are many of us, myself as the chair of the congressional black caucus, who are unwavering of our support for a public auction. let me tell you why. the only way, -- for a public option. let me tell you why. it is so important that those who have insurance, which is about 85% of americans, that their costs come down, their premiums come down, that they not be penalized as it relates to pre-existing conditions, that their insurance companies do not cut them off when they need such types of treatments that they need, and many times when you go to the doctor and find out you need a treatment, the insurance companies make a decision and say no. so that is extremely important, so the public auction is necessary -- the public option is necessary to bring the costs down. i was so delighted that the

president spoke to the conscience of america last night. he talked about this being a moral imperative, which it is. it is really a shame and disgrace that the wealthiest country in the world, we have 47 million uninsured. and those who have insurance are living on the edge and are about to lose their coverage. so i think he did a magnificent job speaking to the conscience of america, and he is trying to bring the country together so we can do the right thing on behalf of the american people. host: for you and your list of priorities, where this federal spending and the deficit lie? guest: that is a big issue in the big concern to the president said last night in no way is this going to increase the national debt. when you look at the bush administration, and in fact the clinton administration left us with j with a huge surplus. the -- left us with a huge surplus. the bush administration left us with wars in iraq and

afghanistan, tax incentives that left us in a huge deficit. the president gets it and understands it, and he said one dime will not go toward that. it took congresswoman barbara lee was the chair of the congressional black -- host: congresswoman barbara lee was the chair of the congressional black caucus. richard, democrats line. richard, go ahead, please. all right, let me move on to a call from st. louis, missouri, keefe, republican line. caller: good morning. the question i would have is that if the congressman believes if illegal aliens should be covered or not under the plan that is being proposed. guest: i think you heard the president very clearly last

night, that undocumented workers in this country without papers would not be covered in his health-care reform package. host: could you explain how the process might work, though? right now hospitals are not able to turn away people from the emergency room if they do not have insurance coverage. so how would the system work as you envision it? guest: the half -- the bills have to be put together to address the issues that the president talked about last night. we're not sure how any of this is going to work, including the public options. it is important that we get the basic principles and the basic framework for legislation in place. host: next is marion, north carolina, ken, independent life. caller: thank you, barbara, for coming on. i do not know how government officials expect us to believe

that you are not attempting to cover illegal immigrants when you were not attending to stop them from crossing the border illegally anyway. i have a question concerning the number of federal workers. how many federal workers is it going to take to run this program, and also, are you willing to tell the cigarette smokers around this country who have been willing to pay more than $2 a packed, would you be willing to tell the social -- the homosexual community in this country that you are allowed to die off, which the president spoke about, that with choices -- guest: i am not willing to tell the american people about any of the issues you talk about except for the fact that we have the moral responsibility to provide health-care coverage in america for all americans. that is what many of us have

supported all our lives, and it is important that we in sure, that the cost of insurance comes down, that premiums are competitive, and that we really see this as a moral issue and really address this as the essence of the character of the country, which is what the president said last night. we are going to work on the bills, we are going to have the best possible legislation that we can get, hopefully bipartisan support from -- through the congress, and in fact the president said he is willing to listen to anyone on these issues. host: how do you see it working legislatively since the house of representatives already has a 1000 page bill that is reported out of the committee structure? how do we go forward from there? guest: well, we have three bills in the house, and at this point they are being negotiated and blended into one bill. we will be meeting with the

speaker and leadership to determine the process here fourth, but of course the president's new ideas and some of the issues that he raised last night, i am sure they are going to have some changes to them based on the leadership and direction the president has provided last night. host: do you anticipate more hearings, or is the hearing process over? guest: the hearing process was over prior to the august break, but we have to talk about more ideas about what the process is going to be. we will be looking at the legislative processes again today and how we will move forward. host: california, democrats line. caller: first i want to congratulate the president on the speech he gave to congress. i think it is wonderful, for one. two, the senator that stood up and in so that our president on

national tv, that is disgraceful. they should have more respect for our leader. this public option for insurance, all these people that do not have insurance that could have a rate that they could afford according to their income is a good thing. and if people can afford to go and buy lottery tickets, go and spend their money on frivolous stuff, they ought to be able to take that money and set aside in pay payments for insurance for their family. host: thank you. a response from the congresswoman? guest: of course there are some who fall through the cracks, but when you look at the upon their rights and poverty rates going up, we have so many people who have lost jobs and lost their

health insurance. we need to make sure that those individuals are covered and that if the person loses his or her job, that the coverage will not be lost as a result of job loss. so i think that is very important that everyone have an opportunity to either purchase or receive the type of support for health-care that they deserve. once again, it is a moral imperative to do that. let me say another thing with regard to what the president did last night. i think he very clearly in a very bold way dispel all the myths and lies that have been out there about this health care reform package, and i hope now the country recognizes and understands that this is for real, this has to happen. it is a policy that must be put into place because it really is a matter of life and death for so many people, and it is a matter for the health and the heart of our country. host: i want to get back to your

availability and accessibility of your coverage, how important it is. do you also accept the concept that everyone should be part of the program, in other words, no opting out? guest: i support that concept because everyone in america should have health care. when you look at the health care costs as a result of 47 million people not having health insurance, you have to room and that average -- you have to remember that at age. we will see the costs go down and we will seek emergency rooms really be relieved of the functions now that really require them to provide primary care for so many people who do not have coverage. host: that laroubaton rouge, louisiana, your the last call for the congresswoman?

caller: i hear the president talked about his plan, his plan. when are we going to see his plan? i heard you say that there are 47 million people uninsured, and the president last night made it very clear that there are only 30 million. now, which is it? guest: well, 30 million, 47 million, regardless, that is too many people to be uninsured for health coverage. 85% of americans have health insurance, but their health insurance is insurance based on premiums that are soaring now. they are going up. their health coverage is becoming coverage that may or may not work when they need it. there are so many pre-existing conditions and exclusions to

their policies, and so we have millions and millions and millions of people uninsured, and what is important to recognize is that we need to cover all of the uninsured and help ensure that the cost of those who have insurance is reduced. host: thank you for being part of our discussion this morning, and i am sure we will hear from you again as the health debate moves on capitol hill. guest: thank you very much. host: representative barbara lee. representative joe barton of texas is the lead republican on the commerce committee. we'll hear his views on the president's speech. let's go to telephone calls, starting with oxford, michigan and a doll, independent line. -- donald, independent line. caller: there is a huge distance between what the president is

saying and what is in the bill. the public exchange, it states that after the bill goes into effect, all insurance must be purchased through the public exchange. so there is no option of running out and buying private insurance. the public exchange will have four basic plans, private insurance has to me before basic plans. host: that is the legislation as it was reported out of the house committees, but there are many more steps in the process. caller: there is a lot more out there to go, still, but none of the plans that i have seen is being the public option being an option. it meant -- and ends up being mandatory down the road. host: what do you want happening? caller: i do not have a problem if the public auction is

optional. if it is competing -- one model is fedex and ups company competing with the post office. if the post office was telling fedex you have to ship at this time and can only charge that this much, you can only pay your employees as much, it will not be efficient. that unfortunately is the type of situation in h.r. 3200. the bigger concern for me is i hope your next guest can comment. there are 26 people on that committee. one of them is prepared to be in that position. the rest is a who's who of special interests. there is a union boss out there. basically those are my comments. there's more to it, but they are over here in -- we are

overhearing this in 30-second sound bites. host: next call, good morning. caller: what people are missing is the fact that chuck schumer, john mccain, moneygram, but that an obama, all of them have all -- linda cramb, president obama, all of them -- their families, parents, spouses, children will be over here, and they will be able to come, and that will cost us a lot. i wish that they would just tell the truth about this. saying -- it is not quite the whole truth because one day -- we will wind up letting them into this healthcare plan. i wish they would tell the truth.

host: i appreciate your call. jane is from the republican line, winston, salem. caller: i want to comment on the pre-existing condition rule about not being denied health care insurance. the problem is that blue cross and blue shield will make it so. -- will make it so on affordable that they are in fact denying health care insurance. host: so they raise your premiums? caller: i have a pre-existing condition and i went to them, and we're talking way above cobra pricing. it was a joke. they were basically telling me -- host: is bluecross blueshield your only option for health insurance in the state? caller: they are the health insurance in north carolina. they will not -- they will just

make you an offer that will chase you away. i know the type of rhetoric they are giving us right now, but i would like to ask your next guest, being not denied for pre- existing conditions, does that mean people will pay the same price as a person that does not have a pre-existing condition? host: i appreciate the call. next up is buffalo, new york. greg, in the pan . caller: susan, who are you -- susan, how are you? is there any way before the end of the program -- i am going to watch the whole thing of course, like i do every morning -- i was wondering if you could bring up the nielsen overnight ratings for the president and how that might compare to his other major speeches. that tells me a lot -- our

people turning in or turning out? secondly, the president, if he wants to be a two-term president, he has got to immediately go on the television and demand that his supporters -- the liberal media, congressional folks, and the folks that voted for him, and i voted for him -- but he has to demand that people stop calling people racist. thank you. host: next up is massachusetts, russell, and are democrats line. caller: good morning, susan. thank you for c-span. my comment is not so much about the speech, but i think it is about the comments after the speech. i was watching c-span last night, and this caller called in and peter asked him if he had seen the speech.

he said, yes, i had watched the speech and he said that he was against big, scary, the government taking over my health care, and that is why he was against the president's speech and everything like that. sapir went up to him and ask him, what would you -- so peter went up and asked him what would you recommend for the 20 or 30 million people uninsured? he said sort of an exchange where you can buy affordable health care. but i do not want big scary government doing this. did this guy listen to one word he said? in the have the mute button on? the president has been consistent throughout the entire campaign. he has never wanted big government takeover. that was just a scare tactic by the republicans and the health- care industry.

i mean, how could you walk away from that entire speech thinking that the president is fire it -- is fighting for big government takeover of your health care? it is just like him are people so indoctrinated? i really do not think this is about health care at all. i really think that the opposition is really about obama. host: thank you, russell. we have another call from aztec, new mexico. good morning to jesse, republican line. caller: good morning, how are you? i was in beirut in 1982 and 1983, and i now with the bill that when they blow it up now, i've seen what the v.a. -- i do not understand this.

v.a. health care is the worst. i do not know where the government can go with health care. host: so your experience with v.a. says that. what about national health care? caller: lead with it -- if we go international health-care like the v.a. is, everybody loses. host: from "the washington post," "economy still fragile, said reports." this is the regular report from the federal reserve on the set of the economy. "the mixed picture underscores how fragile the economy remains. the nation is still vulnerable to new shocks as long as there are such pockets of weakness." "overall business people have remained cautiously positive about economic prospects, a

compilation of anecdotal information of the fed publishes a each has a year punta retail activity was flat. the report is prepared in advance of every fed policy- making committee to help officials understand what is happening at the ground level of the economy." also, the front page of "the washington times," "taxpayers are not likely to recover their $81 billion investment in chrysler and gm took a government watchdog panel said wednesday, recommending that the federal government consider shifting its stake in the troubled automaker's to an independent trust. the congressional oversight panel for the trouble as a relief program also charge that taxpayers were left in the dark in specifics of the government house decision to make use -- to use $700 billion bailout fund to aid the michigan lawmakers. it offered a gloomy effort on the government -- next is a call

from forest city, iowa. roger, independent line, go ahead. hello, roger? you are on the air. all right, we are moving on to crestwood, kentucky, democrats like. caller: good morning. i watched obama's beach, and it was good. i thought it was very good in places, and other places, of course, but it did not have what i am looking for. host: what resonated, and what did not heed you as you wanted? caller: some of the parts that resonated was let's work together, because that is across the board. we have gotten to the point now where everything is so partisan, and i think obama's main reason -- ever but it was saying he did

not go into details and all that. well, there are too many details. you're really cannot go into detail. however, he needed to refute these crazy rumors, the death panels and all this other stuff. you know, of course the republicans have got their supporters up in arms about this. it just kind of strikes me that they always keep going to that same well of trying to scare people, whether it is mushroom clouds or fighting them over there instead of over here, death panels, whenever they are going to use -- what ever they are going to use. you do not use scare tactics on someone who does not get scared easily. you do it on people you know who are easily frightened. so when they do that, to me they are telling their supporters, ok, you know, we have proven it

that this works on you people. you people are the scared ones. he really does not work on the other side because that is really not the basis that they see everything from. they do not see everything from a basis of fear. when they sit there and they say -- if anybody thought about this for two seconds, it would be like, you know, yeah, let's get panels together and kill off grandma and grandpa. . . caller: why would we as

americans believe that washington can actually follow through on this when they have not been able to alter on the bailouts? as a middle-class working american i have company-supplied health insurance. the 2.5% tax is less expensive than providing health insurance for their employees. so what happens to all the middle americans who currently have private insurance will be left out in the cold if this bill passes? i cannot seem to have anyone give me an answer on that. host: our last comment for this open phones segment is larry on the independent line,'caller: john mccain let slip the other day -- miss, i come from a red

state, but alexander and corkir in the tens of million dollars in their personal finances. i wonder if they use the public option for their insurance? i wish that president obama would maybe have laid out a better financial plan as to have to pay for this. host: thank you. on the set, congressman joe barton, our final guest. we have for two hours listened to members of congress and to callers. thank you for being part of the discussion. a reporter from a local texas newspaper wrote this piece -- it says that you appreciate the

president, not one of your own local constituents in the speech last night. her problem deserves highlighting as an example, but as for the rest of the speech you did not like it so much. you called the speech "surreal" and you said that your "shocked." will you explain? guest: in a senior republican on the committee and we had a two- week markup on a certain bill. it may not be the bill from the president, but it is his supporters bill in the house. republicans offered 16 amendments of which only five were accepted whereas democrats offered 50 nearly all of which were accepted. so, i understand that the bill that the present about was not the one that came from the energy and commerce committee. there is a requirement they came out on the senior republican one

there the end of life counseling. we offered a number of amendments to clarify, most of which were rejected. so, if the president says -- he used the term "is a lie, plain and simple" then i'll ask the president to take out those panels when the bill comes to the floor. this question about illegal immigration where congressman wilson made the comment he did -- obviously, we hold the president in highest respect, but now the president has said the illegal immigrants do not get benefits under the bill i hope that congressman wilson offers an amendment that helps with the one representative deal from georgia offered that has

enforcement regulations that require people to prove citizenship. we offered it but the democrats voted it down in committee. i'm glad the president spoke to the american people. i will take him at his word and encourage the republican leadership to offer an ins to employment -- offer amendments to take the president of what he said. that the signature. it is $239 billion and above over budget on a 10-year period. we ought to have something in the bill that comes to the floor to implement that. his general rhetoric, myself and most republicans, support. we cannot support the bill put in front of us to vote on in the energy and commerce committee

and the bill that is apparently going to come to the floor. so, when you go before the american people and speak as the president did last evening my assumption is that you will back up what you say through joint session of congress by directing your advisors and/or political leaders in the house and senate to implement what you said. if he does that, then we may have to work product that people like myself can support. host: i want to get to our calls. i want to understand on this debate concerning access to the system on illegal aliens. hospitals are currently not allowed to turn away those who go to emergency rooms. guest: that is correct. host: even if legislation restricts people having access to the intra system they go to the emergency room, the cost of that is passed on to other

injured individuals. the hospitals must make up for it. guest: or the hospital eats it. host: therefore, they are in the system even if they are not. can you help me with that? guest: what you could do is some sort of triage. when you come to an emergency room, if that is your healthcare window of first resort, be asked to prove citizenship and ability to pay. if it is not life-threatening -- you have a running nose or a bump on your arm, and you cannot or will not prove citizenship and some provincial is, then you

would be directed to a clinic or private pay. that would not be an unconstitutional or immoral, but the situation now does not require it. in the bill from the energy and commerce committee there is a sentence that says that nothing in this bill shall apply to people who are not citizens of the u.s. that is not verbatim, but there is a sentence that says if you're not a citizen, you do not get the benefit, but there is no enforcement mechanism to implement that. we offered an enforcement mechanism, but it was rejected. host: birmingham, and this is jan.

caller: i think that people should back our president. in an elderly. -- i am the elderly. i think he is wonderful. guest: i think he is wonderful. anyone elected as president by definition is a good person and we should support, but that does not mean in a democracy that everything our president says we should do legislatively is something we should support. i agree with the caller from alabama and agree that our president is wonderful, but not every president always supports things good for the country. we have a right to disagree on political issues and try to find a way to compromise.

hopefully, and this debate we will do that. host: you left your committee with a promise from the chairman that there could be additional mark up after the august recess. guest: that is very unusual and has never happened in my committee during the time i have been on it which is 23 years. but there is in the rules that the chairman can offer a motion to reconsider on the next day, a technical motion to bring the bill back that you just released. he could also offer a unanimous consent request that we bring the bill back. or he and i could agree on a brand new bill and put up for the committee's consideration. so, there are a number of ways to continue to consider the bill that has already been reported. it is not used often.

but i have spoken twice this week to chairman henry waxman. those discussions continue. in the next week or two we should bring additional amendments, and some of those things that were disagreed upon between the president and congress could be those we bring up in committee. host: along with the absorbent learnings from town hall meetings? guest: a think the members had a wake-up call in august. the late paul newman in the movie where he keeps doing what he wants to do in the prison warden keeps throwing him in isolation, finally the warning comes out to stand up and newman is down on his knees -- the warden says we have a failure to communicate here. that is a great line.

i think a lot of my friends on the democratic side had not really realize the intensity among constituents. the congress here in september is different in its mind-set than the one that went home in august. host: phoenix, ariz., good morning. caller: good morning, everybody. bear with me as i am a recovering stroke person. i do not understand what this bill cannot be financed even when during the economic meltdown if the securities and exchange tax on otc derivatives, bonds, and all stock trades in the u.s. would have brought in about $500 million.

looking at the amount traded in the u.s., why can't the same begun for the health bill? guest: first of all, the congress has the power to levy taxes, and if the decision is made by the majority in the house and senate and approved by the president that we want to finance whatever we do in healthcare reform with a tax increase, that will happen. the people who vote for them will be held accountable at the polls two years from now. in the president's case three or four years from now. people like myself do not think we should raise taxes for this. the president last night said again this will not be financed with deficit spending. there are tax increases in the bill that came from the energy

and commerce committee and the ways and means committee. all of those increases are ill- advise. to say that small businesses need to "chip in" -- the bill really says there is a mandate for employer-based health insurance. if not, there's a tax penalty of 8% of the salary slashed wages of the employee. we can debate those things and whoever votes a certain way, their constituency will determine if they like it. host: the next call comes from pittsburgh, pa. on the republican line. caller: something particularly upset me in the president's remarks. he mentioned it was a lie that any funding from the bill would be used to pay for abortions.

as a matter of fact, there is nothing in the bill right now that would stop the money from being used to pay for abortions. it implied that the hyde amendment would block it. but it only applies to medicaid funding and would not stop the funding from this bill which would not be under medicaid to pay for abortions. pro-life people from both bills made amendments, but there were all defeated. guest: here i need to complement one of the democrats on the committee, the one from michigan, stupak, who is pro- life. he voted against the bill's final passage. he and congressmen pitts from pennsylvania did offer

amendments on abortion and all but one was defeated. the one accepted was a conscious a minute that healthcare provider would not have to perform -- amendment that a broader would not have to participate in abortion if he/she did not want to. it was accepted. but it was very sly in terms of abortion. it has the health benefits advisory commission that advises with the benefit package should be to the health choices administration agency. that agency can dictate what can and cannot be covered and health insurance policies it has jurisdiction over and in direct response to a question to counsel under the terms of the bill that becomes law if the health benefits advisory commission advises that abortion

should be covered, and if the health choices a minister dictates it is allowable and covered in says it should be eligible for reimbursement, then either the health choices administration could require it be covered, or if a private or public plan chose to cover abortion, then public funds would be used to pay for abortions. as the caller indicated, we offered a number of amendments to specifically said that nothing in the bill would imply that abortions could be paid for with these funds, or that abortions have to be covered. those on close votes -- in one case at one-vote, were defeated. it is possible and even probable that abortion would be covered,

certainly allowable. host: on the line for democrats. caller: we put $300 million in the hand of an individual in iraq who led to federal government under the bush administration to get saddam hussein out of office. the money never materialized. a $11 billion went on to billiontarmac, but never materialized. we pay iraqi women to stand at a checkpoint $300 million per year -- per month, rather and they wave their cousins by with explosives to blow up american soldiers. now we're talking about taking care of american people and that is a problem.

you republicans messed this up in the last eight years. you need to step aside, sit down and listen and let democrats feefix this crap that you all started. guest: i'm not sure what the comments allude to concerning the money for iraq -- the host: it suggested the theme of federal spending. guest: but i'm sure that when they amn the checkpoint i support that they account for. in terms of republicans messing things up, it was us republicans who passed the prescription drug benefit for senior citizens that 95% of seniors have voluntarily chosen. of those over 90% say they're very happy with that drug benefit.

it is also as mean old republicans who have reformed the fda, ready authorized the national institutes of health and double their budget. as we indicated at the top of the program, it was joe barton who offer the amendment that said men and women -- all the men did not have mastectomies, who have some sort of condition that health care canceled because they did not inform the company when they got the policy does not give ground for cancellation. i offer that after one of my constituents had her coverage canceled. it was simply because she had had a acne several years earlier and not reported it on her application for.

with all due respect, republicans care just as much as democrats. we just want to do things in a less interventionist way. host: can you give those 30 seconds with how you think this will play out? guest: the president is a powerful motivator and gave some hope last night. based on my town hall meetings and looking at the rest of the country i think he made a mistake to try to force a bad bill through this congress. i had hoped he would back off and asked us to help him improve the bill. if they bring it out close to what came from committee on to the floor, my judgment is that it will fail. host: thank you. for the final 40 minutes on this

thursday morning we will talk about yesterday's oral argument in the supreme court over campaign finance. we will be back with david savage of "los angeles times" to talk about what happened yesterday. >> unemployment numbers just in show claims for jobless benefits fell more than expected last week. it is evidence that companies are laying off fewer workers. the commerce department says the the trade deficit went up in july to the highest level in six months. it is a sign that the recession is easing. a senate hearing starts at 10:00 a.m. to look to the progress of stimulus and name. also, tributes to senator kennedy to date in the senate. he served five terms. he passed away last month at the age of 77 of brain cancer.

live senate coverage begins on c-span2 in just under 10 minutes. a new center will be sworn in later today for florida, replacing the retiring republican martinez. he was appointed to fill the seat by gov. crist who is himself running for that seat in next year's election. in the house of transportation committee finds that that agency regulating the transport of explosive and other hazardous materials has often waived said the regulations and ignored accidents and citations. the report calls for an immediate high policy level review. kevin testifies on the issue today. finally, a new labor department report identifies more than 50 countries where child labor or forced labor is used. their products often end up in the u.s. the report mandated by congress is being made public today.

"washington journal" continues. host: yesterday was the unusual will be arguing of the case in supreme court and also marked two firsts. here is sonia sotomayor's first question asked in the oral argument. >> are you giving up on your earlier argument that there are ways to resolve this case? we ask for further briefing on this particular issue overturning two presidents, but are you giving up on your earlier arguments that there are statutory and traditions to avoid the constitutional question? host: on your screen is david savage, a longtime reporter for the "los angeles times" and a

seceded peepers. he was listening to this in a press box in the court yesterday. the minister without asking you about the atmosphere. guest: it was unusual for new justice and the first case of the term to be such a big deal. the case was carried over from the spring. it looked like a minor, fun case concerning "hillary: the movie" made by a small, conservative group which have a little bit of corporate funding. the federal election laws are as complicated as the health care ones. it says if you get some corporate money you can be regulated by the agency. it got tied up in a big legal case and came to the supreme court which decided to ready argued the case in focus on the question of overturning past decisions to ruled that

corporations have a free-speech right to advertise and seek to elect or defeat federal candidates? for 100 years federal law has said that corporations can i get too involved in politics. suddenly this has become a very big deal on whether the court will overturn a series of decisions to allow corporations to get into politics big time. host: here are the phone numbers so you can join the conversation. it seems in all the reporting that everyone is looking at two justices. the chief, john roberts, and justice alito. >> what happened to the

doctrine? i thought the doctrine was that if you read it too broadly we will not apre it back to the point here it is constitutional. -- we wanill not pare it back. >> to sit that it does not apply -- to say it does not apply is to take on nothing. >> we do not put our first and minarets in the hands of bureaucrats. if you say will not apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet? >> a pamphlet would be different. this is no attempt to say that 441 b only applies to video, not print. why was that widely quoted? guest: it is a pithy line.

roberts was frustrated that this law is so complicated that you cannot tell people in advance -- if i'm a corporation can we put out a video or movie? is michael moore's movie ago because of lamb bested george bush in 2004? what about a corporate-funded book? what if it attacks a certain candidate? could the government regulate that? this got into a heated debate in march and yesterday. the principle is no corporate money in politics, but how does that play out? justice roberts asked a series of questions. he is skeptical of whether the government can regulate speech

in politics. host: this is a clip from senator john mccain. i understand he and another were listening yesterday. after word state approached reporters in the plaza to comment. >> it is apparent to me that the questioning shows a strong disconnect between the justices and the reality of politics when corporate and union leaders were able to take calls from powerful committee chairmen who would say "i went to check in six- figures, soft money and by the way your legislation is up before the committee." we saw the corruption in the telecommunications reform act, and in other legislative activities and results as the

influence of special interests and corporate and union money in washington which credit out the right of the average citizen who does not have the amount of money that these do. i wish one of the justices who were so strongly standing up for first amendment rights had never run for a county sheriff. host: what is your reaction to that? guest: several -- i heard john mccain several weeks ago stand up to say what he was voting against sonia sotomayor. he said he is worry that she would be a judicial activist. he had supported conservative justices that he was very fond of. he goes to the court yesterday and who were the justices likely to strike down what congress has done?

the very ones he had voted for. sonia sotomayor will uphold the law. in the first question she was asking why we are arguing this big issue in this small case. couldn't you win it merely by saying this is a dvd by a very small group, not even a corporation. but we should not get into the business of striking down the laws against corporate funding. i'm intrigued by the fact -- i was wondering whether john mccain might have had an epiphany yesterday wondering if he had backed the wrong people. host: pardon me if you know all this about the supreme court. you're listening to the audio because the supreme court does not permit tv cameras. it is unusual to hear the audio recordings immediately after the case is are giving go news organizations must petition the court for same-state police in

the chief justice decides on it. yesterday he agreed to immediate release of the oral argument just after it was finished. that is why you have this opportunity to hear them and the response. that changes things, don't you think? rather than just reading about it. guest: i am in a small group who gets to hear them all the time. i do wish their release the more often. it does not harm the court, but gives the public a chance to hear. if there is enough interest from the press they will release the audiotape immediately, otherwise not. host: iowa, on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i'm curious. i'm just an old person who has been watching for years. i think it was 1896 or the

congress i'm sure was bullied by the big boys to pass a law that said corporations were the same as a person. the same with labor unions. i don't understand that law. teddy roosevelt passed the big bill concerning corruption and antitrust. you have to convince me why the supreme court is nothing more than to say yes, this is constitutional, or not. why did they even get a voice?

could you explain? guest: you have the right issue. is a corporation like an individual? going back to teddy roosevelt federal law has said corporations can be barred from giving money to candidates. since 1947 they may not spend money directly to elect or defeat candidates. the argument is being made now that corporations are like persons and have free speech rights. if a corporation wants to defeat nancy pelosi, it could have them. the court could rule that corporations have a free-speech right to get involved in politics. you can imagine many in 2010

could choose to spend billions to run ads for or against members of congress. the supreme court is being asked to divide and is closely divided on in deciding whether corporations have these full speech rights. if i had to $9 to spend as an individual i have a free-speech right to run ads. -- if i had $9 million to spend as an individual i could do that. host: this case is guaranteed to be a landmark case? some suggest the justices could decide to roll merrily. guest: it could end up being a very minor case. it is hard to tell. this conservative group will win this case.

the only question is whether they will win narrowly. host: but it leaves the corporate situation intact. guest: yes, or they could say that the federal government will not allow it concerning campaign speech. host: iowa city, on the republican line. caller: this concerns me. is an individual and corporation, the relationship -- how does that relate to what exists now as loll in the constitution? is this even an issue?

how we revisited this in the john mccain-feingold passage as far as what can be said at a certain time prior to a federal election? my specific question is this. where would the judges' stand on this? would they ignore the political situation and good to the constitution to dig out for the freedom of speech stands? guest: the supreme court justices are very divided. they do not even agree on history regarding this point. scalia and stevens refer to the

r ailroads who could challenge things because they had rights just as a person me know justice stevens said they have never said that. justice scalia says yes, we have. they're famous cases regarding "the new york times." so, the justices do not agree. i do not think there will agree in this case, but the fundamental issue is, do they want to treat corporations -- and i presume unions -- as individuals who have a free- speech right. the john mccain-feingold law plugged loopholes. john mccain said that soft money was a term coming into vogue

because it got around limits on. on you could give it to a party for schenectady's. congress is always trying to plug those. -- begin a two-party for certain activities. corporate money was one of the moneys limited. host: i was city was just on air. caller: then would you agree that the issue here for would be to define corporation? host: hostguest: it is an artifl entity. corporations are not like people.

you did not bump into them on the street. it is a legal entity whose job is to make money. they are not voters. they have a variety of ventures. corporations job is to make money. justice scalia says it is just an association of people and there are a lot of small corporations. he kept saying that the local hairdresser could be incorporated. the answer is we do not want to keep them out of politics, but they can give money as individuals. they are going to define the first amendment rights of a corporation. the first moment says congress will make no law restricting the freedom of speech. ted olsen says that no law means such and you should strike it down. host: this morning, independent

line. caller: i believe in freedom of. speech of many corporations have ripped off us taxpayers for years. i have a hard time dealing with that when a look at with the pharmaceutical corporations have done to us. even what the fda allowed to happen. i have a hard problem supporting corporations now. their main goal is to make money, but it is off the expense of american taxpayers. guest: you do not sound like a vote for the corporations in this case. right now corporations have a fair amount of influence in politics. there are corporate pacs. they are lobbyists.

this potentially could ramp that up quite a bit. corporations can find issue ads. if pharmaceuticals or one of the healthcare companies ran ads to say that health care is good or bad for the following reasons -- what they cannot do is run an ad that says do not vote for nancy pelosi, or so and so because they have the wrong position on -- host: you were asked this by twitter. the second question is, who has the most to lose from this case? guest: there are whole series of cases that involve corporations coming up in different contexts.

so, i don't think there is any way to say that corporations usually win or lose. plus, there is a whole variety of corporations. there are cases involving the ncaap which is technically a corporation. host: here is another question. guest: as to who loses, this one has a partisan cast. a lot of the republicans including the republican national committee have been strong supporters of that this notion of free speech rights for corporations. the obama administration has been strongly opposed to the notion of more corporate money in politics. for what ever it is worth, this would be more applauded by the republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and opposed by democrats and liberals.

host: this question is related. guest: let me see. there are some similarities. the difference between a religious group or some other social group as kagan tried to explain, most people don't know when they have a mutual fund. you do not by those stocks or do it because you are interested in the company's political views. you are doing it because you think the stock will go up and you will make money. i do think there is a difference between interest group that comes together supporting a particular idea or cause and a

corporation coming together as a particular legal form. its only real goal is to make money. host: speaking of the supreme court, on october 4 c-span will debut its new series. there's a documentary on the night of october 4 which will tell you more about the building and the justices. the following weekend we will have in their entirety each of the one-on-one interviews conducted with the sitting justices and justice o'connor for the talk about their role and the view of the court in society. it is very rare that these justices sit in front of tv cameras. we invite you to watch and you can also find it on the website after the series airs. baltimore is up next. caller: good morning, when it

comes down to campaign contributions to these governments when running for offices all these corporations, insurance companies that give these campaign contributions to these government running offices, then later on when the big scandals to mount and the corporations have given -- it seems to me they get better protections in court to help them once they have been decided of fraud. it seems these insurance companies are giving away with fraud. there's nothing in the core system to safeguard the citizens -- in the court system.

they make big contributions to those running for office. it seems to me the average citizen is losing out to these big corporations and insurance companies when they battle fraud and schemes. the average citizen cannot defend himself against them. where can you take these things to a higher court? host: thank you. where in yesterday's argument with his point of view have resided? guest: the fact that corporations already have a lot of influence -- host: at the expense of the individual.

guest: her job is to defend the law. both justices made the same point that goes back 100 years. one of the consistent themes in american history is that corporations have enormous power because of money and wealth -- although not everyone agrees. there will have some role in politics, but we don't want them to have too much. if you allow them to find candidates directly through campaign ads, the danger is you get lawmakers who basically right all the laws to protect corporations and they make the problem worse. host: we have a clip of kagan. >> this has a self interest. we are suspicious of congressional action in the

first amendment area precisely because -- at least in as i doubt that we can expect a body of incumbents to draw election restrictions that do not favor incumbents. is that excessively cynical of me? i do not think so. >> i think justice scalia, it is wrong. in fact corporate money goes overwhelmingly to incumbents. if you look at the last election cycle and corporate back money, it goes 10 times more to incumbents than to challengers. in the prior cycle even more than that. for an obvious reason. when they play in the political process they want winners, people who will produce outcomes for them. they know the way to get those is to invest in incumbents.

in double-digits more than they invest in challengers. the rationale which is undoubtedly true in many contexts is simply not the case -- host: 0 was a light in the room watching her with her first oral argument? guest: i thought she was very impressive, very good for any argument, particularly a first one in a complicated case. the first idea is to have a conversational tone with them. she was not shy at all about taking on scalia and roberts and sang the premise of the question is wrong. she said if there were truly self-interested they would lift all the ban on corporate and

union spending because corporations would then give the money to them. she basically said several times, and joan rivers said what are we supposed to do with a case like this? she said you ought to do what you normally do it and decide it narrowed. -- that is what she said when john roberts asked what to do with a case like this. i thought she was very quick and well-prepared and. she handled it exceedingly well. you know you're going up against five justices who probably disagree from the start. he will probably not convince them, but she was very good -- you will probably not convince them. but she turned it around and made a strong point. host: was her goal not to win, but to narrow the scope of the loss? guest: yes, her goal was to lose

neararrowly. she said if we have to lose we would rather lose on these grounds than on the other. it is ok too narrow the law to say and ideological groups, non- profit baby should not be covered by the law, but do not go to next step to say all corporations have the same free- speech rights. host: the next call is from michigan on the republican line. caller: yes, i would like to ask the man this question me know if you do not want these corporations -- we want to restrict their freedom of speech, but why are we doing that when the left democrats are

continually assaulting them? don't they have the right to defend themselves? another thing, your comment about john mccain. that is one of the reasons he lost support from us republicans is his very opinion about campaign finance reform. it was very much to the left. so that logic does not apply to us conservatives. why do you restrict the corporations' speech so much when the leftist assaulting them so much? they should have the right to defend themselves and make a statement of who they would like to have an office. guest: let me split it down the middle. they have a right to defend

themselves. for example, if the insurance companies' having heard president obama's speech last night say they're being unfairly bashed on this and when to run a public campaign to say it is not their fault, they are free to do so and spend a lot of money. they do that. granted, there is one restriction in the law which is that they cannot give money directly to a candidate for congress or presidency and the cannot run an ad saying specifically to defeat smith and elect jones. host: the next call is from wisconsin on the independent line. caller: the reason i'm calling is, during this last presidential election i was listening to a couple of cable

channels and a they were talking about on the money that was being donated to candidates from foreign countries. many people supposedly gave a $20 donation. the foreign countries would bundle all these donations they got and send one large check to whichever. whichever i thought that was against law -- to whichever candidate they wanted. why isn't anyone investigating this? i remember when al gore was running and the big scandal -- some nuns or with some asian group and he should not have expected that many. why it are they allowing people from foreign countries to donate money so they can determine our elections?

host: ok. guest: yes, it is illegal for foreigners or foreign companies to contribute election money. i do not know the facts as you are referring to from the 2008 election. it should be investigated. the federal election commission should look into it. host: this is related from of your by e-mail. -- this is related to her question. guest: it is a terrific question which was also asked by justice ginsburg yesterday. if you are arguing there's no distinction between corporations and individuals, what do we do with the megacorporations some of whom are foreign-owned?

can they put money into campaign ads? there was no answer. it is a big problem if you go down this road. host: this view were poses this question. -- by this viewer comes this question. guest: this came from a case in the mid 1970's right after watergate where the court created a division that has stayed with us ever since. it basically said the government can restrict contributions. if i have millions of dollars the government can restrict how much i can give. only 25 -- only $2,500 or whatever. but if i want to spend money on

my own, i have the money to do so. that is what funded candidates like ross perot or mayor bloomberg from new york. that is still at issue. even conservative justices agreed the government can forbid corporations from giving money directly to congressional candidates, but they say the government cannot forbid corporations from running campaign ads that say to elect or defeat congressman jones. that division between expenditures and contributions is still around. host: steve, on the line for democrats. caller: i was born in 1943, so there are many people my age do not know what was passed.

but i understand back in 1945 the massey-ferguson act was enacted to exempt insurance companies' from the antitrust laws it means they are exempt from paying taxes. wouldn't you say that is true of why we have the mess in healthcare? guest: i'm not familiar with that law. insurance is a state-ready. -- is state-regulated. host: go ahead, james. host: go ahead, james. caller: if the white house can